New Brain Scans Can Spot PTSD 107
Neuroscientists think they may have found a scientific method to identify post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) using a brain imaging method called magnetoencephalography (MEG). In the test study, the scientists studied 74 vets with PTSD and 250 civilians without and were able to spot the PTSD sufferers with 90% accuracy. "MEG machines are a fast, sensitive and accurate way to measure electric activity in the brain. Whereas CT scans and MRIs record brain signals every few seconds, MEGs can do it by the millisecond, catching biomarkers and brain activity that the other tests inevitably miss. The study could be a breakthrough for the military, who've been scrambling to address a surge in post-traumatic symptoms among newly returning vets. Right now, troops are evaluated by mental health experts, but diagnosis is a crap-shoot: symptoms can take years to show up, and vary from person to person, even among those exposed to the same traumas. The Pentagon's already been pushing for more objective, systematized diagnosis tools, like portable at-home sleep monitors and genetic testing to detect PTSD vulnerability. They've even launched a program to create stress-mitigating pharmaceuticals."
Re:Possible fault in the sample group (Score:3, Interesting)
symptoms can take years to show up
Would the machine be able to tell either? It could be that the brain changes over time (as a person relives the trauma) that makes the symptoms visible.
Car accidents (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Possible fault in the sample group (Score:4, Interesting)
These are valid concerns.
The study was published in J. Neural Engineering which, regrettably, my institution does not have a subscription to, so can't be as well-informed as I'd like, unfortunately. Nevertheless, the research was headed by Dr. Apostolos Gerogropoulos, whom I know professionally and by his research publications. Now, Dr. Georgopoulos is no fool. His research team certainly must have thought about these potential issues. There's a hint at why the study might be considered valid despite what at first blush seems like a lack of proper controls in the press release: "the researchers also are able to judge the severity of how much [subjects with PTSD] are suffering," Proper controls (ie, soldiers without PTSD) are necessary, but if there's a good correlation between the observed MEG phenomena and the strength of clinical findings, then maybe the study really has discovered something interesting.
Re:what about the other 10% (Score:3, Interesting)
I had a four-year fight with the VA to get service-connected for PTSD. After indisputable records of many, many combat stressors, four years of the VA mental health clinical team regularly putting full, five-axis PTSD diagnoses in their chart notes, and my career devolving from well-paid Solaris systems engineer to unemployment, my claims and appeals were denied by bureaucrats who had never seen me in person.
I did finally get the service connection, but the years of bureaucrats telling me I had no problems made my symptoms worse, and my life is a shambles because of it. This technology could have been a near-literal life-saver for me; I hope it proves to be so for future veterans.
p.s. - if you haven't already, try a symptom management group with the VA. The class I attended was very helpful for me. The seven or eight Vietnam vets and the two WWII vets in the class said the same after the last session.
Re:what about the other 10% (Score:2, Interesting)
The pharmacy is a good one, but the jewelry counter (unless it is right out in the open) or automotive center is also good.
--The location of the pharmacy for one, usually in a less traveled section of the store.
--Less people check out there for two, so there are fewer eyes on you as you are getting your stuff checked out.
--It usually has at least some soft cover or concealment for three.
--Also, it is an unexpected location to be checking out (never take the same route twice).
Corrections (Score:3, Interesting)
MEG is not new, it's over 40 years old.
Conceptually it's even older. It is the magnetic signals associated with the well known EEG 'brain waves', first recorded in 1928.
It is exactly and only the perpendicular to the EEG signals, and as such are analyzed in much the same way, and represent the same neural processes.
What good it is, is it can detect and localize 'dipole' generators in the folds of the cortex. Since the negative and positive ends of those are the same distance from the scalp, they balance out on EEG and can't be seen. The magnetic field to such a dipole is most prominent in this configuration.
The drawback is that detecting the ~10 femtotesla signals require massive shielding to prevent pretty much any near by electrical activity to interfere. With signals that weak, it's a good thing the magnetic field isn't reduced by the skull and scalp like EEG (by 3 orders of magntitude).
The detectors are superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDS). They require massive technical infrastructure and maintenance, ie. great expense.
Except for the localization noted, if MEG can do it, EEG can do it easier, cheaper (three orders of magnitude), faster (in terms of turnover), and operated by personnel with less training. There are portable EEGs capable of being operated in the field, but even a full size unit is about the size of a desktop computer and can be run off a laptop.
I'd be very interested to hear what TFA has to say about why MEG is necessary. Their 248 SQUID machine is high density, but so are the 256 electrode EEG that have been on the market for years. I'd also like to know exactly what the signals of interest are, so I can figure out how to pull it out of EEG with far less sophisticated equipment, such as exists in pretty much every VA neurology department.